To:SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.Dated: October 24, 2011.
1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled "Key Provisions of the Bill", thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).
3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was "completely toothless". They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.
4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being "too weak". In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.
5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities "accountable" to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of "targeted communities" to note their views on the Bill as follows:
"The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as 'communally disturbed area' JCMOE statement said.
6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.
7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the "generally targeted" victims of communal violence; and that the word 'communal violence' be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.
8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.
9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.
10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.
11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.
12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.
13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.
14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.
15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.
16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the 'non-dominant group' according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute 'dominant group' and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.
17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the 'Definitions' part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-
"Communal and targeted violence" means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group".
18. The mischief is centered round the word 'Group'. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a 'Group'.
"Group" means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;
19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines 'Hostile environment against a group' thus:
"Hostile environment against a group" means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
(i) boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or
(ii) publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or
(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;
or,
(iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or
(v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment."
Note the Clause (v) – 'Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act'. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn't come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of 'hostile environment' is malafide.
Clause (k) defines who is a 'victim'. Here the draft makers are very explicit:
"victim" means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
"Victim" can only be belonging to a 'group' as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the 'non-dominant group'. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a 'victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….' Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define 'psychological harm'? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called 'psychological harm' be one of the reasons for victimhood?
Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:
4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person's membership of that group where;
(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;
20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines 'sexual assault'. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.
21. Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..
22. The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore. All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.
23. Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505

24. It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that "the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself".
25. Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.

Speakers at a seminar on the proposed "Communal and Targeted Violence Bill 2011" described it as unconstitutional and fissiparous in nature, and claimed there was no need for such a law as the existing laws were efficacious enough.

At the seminar organised under the auspices of the Advocates for Dharma here on Sunday, former judge of the Supreme court K.T. Thomas said it would not stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court as it was not just, fair and reasonable to become a Law as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Debunking the superficial understanding of the term "secularism", he said "it transcends religion and is about the individual dignity of the person concerned."

This Bill would reverse the process of integration, which had been achieved after the balkanisation the country had suffered during the British rule. It would hit the country's unity and integrity, divide the society and disrupt its harmony. "Hence, this is a Bill intended for disintegration" and "targeted for vote banks", he alleged.

Former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation Joginder Singh described it as an "absolutely stupid Bill" designed for "vote bank politics". He wondered why this was not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir where the problem was acute. In a bid to curry favour from about half-a-dozen communities, this would be unfair to most of the communities in the country, he lamented.

While asserting that India had never discriminated against the minorities, he reeled out statistics to show how several Muslims held positions of prominence such as that of the President. "This Bill is more appropriate to Pakistan than to India."

S. Gurumurthy, Vice-President of the Dharma Raksha Samiti, said Indian society had already been functioning harmoniously and that "this Bill is an interference". This was an attempt to make "criminal law stand on its head", he observed. He wondered how such a Bill could be conceived and alleged that it was the product of an "evil mind". It was the failure of the "elite" that had allowed a free run for such evil minds, he lamented. Other speakers alleged this Bill was nothing but "divide and rule" and was a "poison" to the fabric of society and hurt its pluralism. It was a "motivated" Bill. This was meant to protect a "group" which was flawed in law because all are equal before law. Besides, despite having a number of legislations to protect Scheduled Caste and Tribe people, it was a "camouflage" that they had been clubbed with the "linguistic and religious minorities". This was a colourable exercise of power.

Indian Muslims have Hindu ancestry: Swamy

Karan Thapar CNN-IBN | 14-Aug 20:34 PM

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. In a recent article in DNA Subramanian Swamy has said that Indian Muslims must either proudly accept and acknowledge their Hindu ancestors and legacy or be disenfranchised. To many that feels like hateful, communal prejudice. But how does Doctor Swamy defend himself. That is the key issue I should put today to Subramanian Swamy himself.

Doctor Swamy you are a Harvard professor, a former Law Minister. You are at the forefront of the campaign to bring the 2G accused to justice. How do you account for this hateful communal prejudice against Muslims?

Subramanian Swamy: No, it is not hateful at all. It is first of all factually correct that Muslims of India have DNA wise the same DNA as us. And therefore there is nothing wrong with them acknowledging that their ancestors are Hindus. If they say Hindus are not their ancestors, then who could be their ancestors? Now after all we created Pakistan for those Muslims who didn't consider themselves as ready to live with their Hindu brothers.

Karan Thapar: I will come to the core of your argument in a moments of time but first let me put this to you. Do you dislike Muslims?

Subramanian Swamy: How could I? I have got a son-in-law who is a Muslim.

Karan Thapar: He hasn't complained?

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah, he hasn't complained.

Karan Thapar: Your son-in-law has no objection to your views?

Subramanian Swamy: I can't say whether he has objections or not but he hasn't complained to me. And these are not my new views, these view are from the very beginning.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying to me, you don't dislike Muslims?

Subramanian Swamy: Why should I dislike them, they are Indians if they acknowledge their ancestors are Hindus.

Karan Thapar: Do you distrust Muslims?

Subramanian Swamy: Why should I? If they say that their ancestors are Hindus they are as much Indians as I am. Only if they say their ancestors are not Hindus, they are not as good Indians as I am.

Karan Thapar: There is a precondition there?

Subramanian Swamy: Of course there is a precondition. After all Pakistan was created on that precondition. You must understand why Pakistan was created.

Karan Thapar: Does that precondition mean that you are actually anti-Muslim?

Subramanian Swamy: No, how can that be. In fact I tell you, I found that - Muslims themselves have told me - we find nothing wrong. These people are creating problem because of the 2G scam.

Karan Thapar: Let's then come to the central prescription in your article published in DNA in July, you write and I want to quote, "If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her, others who refuse to acknowledge this can remain in India but should not have voting rights." What is your justification for that?

Subramanian Swamy: Because then the whole genesis arises out of partition. Partition was created for two kinds of Muslims, those who can live with Hindus on the basis of a commonality and those who said that can't have anything to do with Hindus.

Karan Thapar: Why is acknowledging your Hindu ancestors or your Hindu legacy proof that you can live with Hindus. Why do you have to make it the main issue?

Subramanian Swamy: Because that is the truth and why should they deny the truth.

Karan Thapar: Well hang on a second. It is not the truth because you don't make that condition for Christens, Jains, Sikhs. It is not in that article.

Subramanian Swamy: No, I do. This was written in context with Mumbai terrorist act. But if you go by my book, "Hindutva and National Renaissance" I have said it for Christians too.

Karan Thapar: But in the article which is headlined, "How to wipe out Islamic terror" the word Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh doesn't feature even once.

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah, because they have nothing to do with that terror.

Karan Thapar: So you have singled out Muslims.

Subramanian Swamy: Because it was on the context of Bombay.

Karan Thapar: In fact you have gone a step further, I'm going to quote from that DNA article, "declare India a Hindu Rashtra".

Subramanian Swamy: Yes.

Karan Thapar: Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus, and then you say you want some 300 mosques removed, clearly.

Subramanian Swamy: You are not quoting me correctly.

Karan Thapar: I'm quoting you correctly.

Subramanian Swamy:It was conditional on the goals of terrorist.

Karan Thapar: But hang on a moment. You believe that those goals are facts therefore these conditions follow as light follows day.

Subramanian Swamy:No, if they execute terrorist acts, then these should follow as retaliation.

Karan Thapar: Even the attempt to declare India a Hindu Rashtra and call it a nation of Hindus. A nation of Hindus suggest that your concept of India does not have room for Muslims.

Karan Thapar: Hang on a second. Why did you not specify that in your article?

Subramanian Swamy: When you write an article you don't specify everything.

Karan Thapar: This is such a critical point.

Subramanian Swamy: This is not a critical point from my point of view. It is very well understood. Vivekananda said this. And let me tell you that these views that I have expressed is in different forms in Ambedkar's writings.

Karan Thapar: No matter in whose writings they may be in, you are presenting them today as your views and you are not differentiating Hinduism as a way of life and Hinduism as a religion.

Subramanian Swamy: No, I don't talk about Hinduism as way of life, I talk about Hinduism as a value system. Way of life is too vague.

Karan Thapar: Why should Muslims have to subscribe to a value system for Hindus.

Subramanian Swamy: Because we Hindus believe all religions lead to god. Muslims should also believe that.

Karan Thapar: But Muslims have a right to believe that their religion is their way of going to god. They don't have to subscribe to Hindu values.

Subramanian Swamy: No, Muslim religion is not only that. Muslin religion also defines what is darul islam, darul harab.

Karan Thapar: Let me put to you this first of all, you wrote that article on behalf of Hindus.

Subramanian Swamy: Yes.

Karan Thapar: What gives you the feeling that the majority of Hindus agree with you.

Subramanian Swamy: Go and talk to them.

Karan Thapar: What do you mean go and talk to them?

Subramanian Swamy: I would say judging to all the reaction to my article, the Hindus are overwhelmingly in support.

Karan Thapar: Are you saying that Hindus are communal like you are?

Subramanian Swamy: Well it depends how you define communal. If you think that what I have written is communal then I will say that 99 per cent are communal.

Karan Thapar: 99 per cent Hindus are communal?

Subramanian Swamy: If your definition of Hindu or Communalism is what you have defined it.

Karan Thapar: Let's come to the reasons such as why you have this particular view and attitude to Muslims. You say and I'm quoting once again, Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reacted process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus. What proof do you have of this?

Subramanian Swamy: Who has done the Bombay attack?

Karan Thapar: What about Swami Asimanand, what about Col. Purohit what about Pragya Singh Thakur?

Subramanian Swamy: Don't change the subject. Today there is sufficient evidence that home grown Muslim individuals have become terrorists.

Karan Thapar: But there is also sufficient evidence of home grown Hindus become terrorists.

Subramanian Swamy: Don't change the subject, first let's finish this point. And then I'm comingI'm ready to take this point, but first let's take the first point. That for the fist time I find that there is sufficient evidence with our intelligence system that Muslims are being programmed into becoming terrorists.

Karan Thapar: For the sake of argument only. I will accept you are right. In fact why then associate the whole Muslim community because a small fringe lunatic element doing it.

Subramanian Swamy:I'm not. Read that statement. I'm saying they are being programmed to slowly. That doesn't mean that has already happened.

Karan Thapar: But you are saying Muslims of India, not a few Muslims.

Subramanian Swamy: They are all being targeted.

Karan Thapar: So there you are. You are associating the whole community for a small minority.

Subramanian Swamy: I'm not associating the whole community; I am saying they are being targeted as a whole community.

Karan Thapar: You are even going one step further.

Subramanian Swamy: Yes.

Karan Thapar: Not only you are associating the whole community with what a small minority are doing but on the bases of that minority you are demanding that the whole community should either be disenfranchised if they do not accept Hindu ancestry.

Subramanian Swamy: That is your inference. That is not what is written there.

Karan Thapar: It's anyone's inference. It is a logical inference.

Subramanian Swamy: I can produce 200 people for every person you produce, I will produce 200 people who say that is not the case.

Karan Thapar: Doctor Swamy it is hard to read your article and come to any other conclusion. You are blaming the majority for a lunatic fringe.

Subramanian Swamy: Listen you are an opinionated person, so you can come to any opinion. I have written this with full understanding of what I'm writing. I'm telling you that Muslim as a community is being targeted by terrorist, by propaganda to slowly slide into suicide against Hindus. Now earlier on it didn't work, now it has begun to work, so we have to do something about it.

Karan Thapar: You know I will leave that uncontested only because I have argued with it for so long people know what I have to say. But I will just point out there will be millions who will disagree. You also say in your article Islam will confront Hinduism to complete unfinished business.

Subramanian Swamy: That's right.

Karan Thapar: Once again that may be an opinion of a small fringe fanatic lunatic minority like all religions have such minorities, but clearly it is not the view of majority of Muslims and it is not a position endorsed by Islam.

Subramanian Swamy: It is the view of terrorist; it is the views of terrorist organisations.

Karan Thapar: But you say Islam will confront Hinduism.

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah, of course it is Islam theology, which says that if you are darul islam you have to behave in a certain way. For instance they won't let you built temple in Saudi Arabia.

Karan Thapar: So Islam is your target not terrorist?

Subramanian Swamy: There is no question of Islam being target. The Islamic thought whether if you go by Quran and Hidat, it for the faithful to finish off the kafir.

Karan Thapar: In other words your target is Islam.

Subramanian Swamy: What do you mean your target is Islam? I'm educating you about Islam. I am just telling you what Islam is. I don't need a target, I have enough people in this country. I don't need Islam as target.

Karan Thapar: Do you know what you are really doing? You are sowing seeds of distrust between Hindus and Muslims.

Subramanian Swamy: No. That is your psychoanalysis.

Karan Thapar: You are dividing India and you are provoking Hindus and the worst thing is that you are doing this knowingly and deliberately.

Subramanian Swamy: I have not done any such thing because this is your inference. Now you are entitled to your inference. I only said what people like Ambedkar have said long before me. I am saying it in different way but it is all there. We have seen it there and we have to recognise it.

Karan Thapar: You know in your DNA article you claimed that you are devising a strategy to eradicate terrorism. But paradox is that the seeds of distrust that you are sowing is actually going to create the bases of fresh terror.

Subramanian Swamy: That is a accusation which has no foundation.

Karan Thapar: It's an inference, it is a conclusion, it flows from what you are doing.

Subramanian Swamy: These accusations have been thrown at me but nothing came out of it ultimately. People have whipped themselves into synthetic anger, but what came out of it?

Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you. Is this a tactic to ingratiate yourself with the RSS, to secure their political score.

Subramanian Swamy: No. I'm past that. I have already won over the RSS heart long time ago.

Karan Thapar: Let's come back to the point you made at the beginning of this interview. You said that you had a Muslim son-in-law. Your wife in fact is Parsi. How do they respond to the conditions to the conditions you attach for minorities, you say clearly that if minorities do not accept with pride their Hindu ancestors and their Hindu legacy they should disenfranchised. How does your Parsi wife and Muslim son-in-law accept it?

Subramanian Swamy: Well first of all Parsi's have no difficulty. In fact when they land in India they sign a contract.

Karan Thapar: But they don't have Hindu ancestors, they don't have Hindu legacy.

Subramanian Swamy: How do you know?

Karan Thapar: Don't they came from Iran, they came from Persia.

Subramanian Swamy: They came. Ninety men and 60 women came. You don't know Parsi history. So don't make wild guesses.

Karan Thapar: So Parsis also have Hindu ancestors?

Subramanian Swamy: Of course they do.

Karan Thapar: Is your wife prepared to accept that?

Subramanian Swamy: Well you ask her?

Karan Thapar: No, I'm asking you.

Subramanian Swamy: I'm sorry, I'm not going to tag my wife into this.

Karan Thapar: Is your son-in-law prepared to accept that?

Subramanian Swamy: Conversation between husband and wife is privileged, do you know that?

Karan Thapar: Is your son-in-law prepared to accept that?

Subramanian Swamy: Why should I tell you that, you ask him.

Karan Thapar: Aren't you in danger of dividing your family?

Subramanian Swamy: Well ask the family. I have had not this problem; this is not my new views. They may have been written first time in a newspaper in this form but I have written books about it. I have been saying this from the day I joined Janata party.

Karan Thapar: Are you proud of these views?

Subramanian Swamy: Of course, otherwise there is no question of proud, these are my views. I think the people of India are proud of it.

Karan Thapar: Is your family embarrassed by them?

Subramanian Swamy: They have not told me so.

Karan Thapar: Are they just being polite?

Subramanian Swamy: Why don't you talk with my family and find out. You interact with some of them. They happen to be in your channel. Why don't you ask them?

Karan Thapar: Doctor Swamy let's come to the letter that you wrote to the Prime Minster on the April 15 seeking his permission to prosecute Sonia Gandhi under the Prevention of Corruption Act. What response have you had from the Prime Minister?

Subramanian Swamy: Well he has just now sent me a letter saying that its premature and therefore he didn't find sufficient bases to give me permission.

Karan Thapar: When you say that he sent you just know, how soon is just know?

Subramanian Swamy: Well I was in America. So it must have come in the last week of July I think.

Karan Thapar: And you saw it only on your return couple of days ago.

Subramanian Swamy: That's right.

Karan Thapar: What does the letter say?

Subramanian Swamy: It just says that it is a premature thing and I don't find any bases therefore to proceed ahead.

Karan Thapar: In other words he has refused to give permission?

Subramanian Swamy: Well that is the reading of it. It doesn't matter because I never thought that he will ever give me permission. I just wanted to go though the process. Now I will go to the Supreme Court

Karan Thapar: Now the process requires you to give the Prime Minster three months to reply.

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah it's more than three months now.

Karan Thapar: And now that he has refused at the end of that three month period. What do you intend to do?

Subramanian Swamy: I intend to go to the Supreme Court on that.

Karan Thapar: You will go to the Supreme Court?

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah I did it for Raja, the same procedure.

Karan Thapar: So you will file a case in the Supreme Court seeking permission to prosecute Sonia Gandhi under the Prevention of Corruption Act. How confident are you that the Supreme Court will admit it, given the fact that the Prime Minister has refused to give you the permission?

Subramanian Swamy: I can never prejudge the Supreme Court. They are wise judges and I'm quite impressed with them, but I think the prima facie case is very strong.

Karan Thapar: Well you say that the prima facie case is very strong and for those who haven't had the benefit of reading the letter of April 15, let me summaries briefly, you allege and I'm underlining the work allege that Sonia Gandhi has benefited from Bofors, that she has benefited from Iraq food for oil deals. You calm that she has been the recipient of the payoffs from the Russian KGB. You again allege that she has bank accounts abroad and finally you have been calming for several years that she is also involved in the illegal export of the antiquities. But what evidence do you have for any of this?

Subramanian Swamy: Well do you want me to speak on all of them or anyone of them?

Karan Thapar: Tell me first of all about the clam that she has received payoffs from the KGB.

Subramanian Swamy: Well you know, there is no KGB now, there is something called FSI, so when these documents... You see what happened, the Americans took out all these documents from everybody, they literally stole the KGB library. And then photostated and put it in various university liberties. Now those documents I have produced in the Delhi High Court in a writ petition. The Delhi High Court had issued a notice to the CBI at that time the spokesman of the successor organisation of the KGB said yes we had given money because the whole family was friendly to us.

Karan Thapar: So in other words these are documents from the KGB authenticated by the Americans.

Subramanian Swamy: Not authenticated.

Karan Thapar: But put on websites by the Americans?

Subramanian Swamy: Yes. In the libraries it is available

Karan Thapar: And therefore these documents are available in libraries.

Subramanian Swamy: And they are available in Delhi High Court.

Karan Thapar: Number two you have also said that she has bank accounts out side the country. What proof do you have of that?

Subramanian Swamy: Well the proof I have given there is highly respected.

Karan Thapar: But that goes back to 1991.

Subramanian Swamy: Yeah, so she had it then.

Karan Thapar: But how do you know that you can rely on them?

Subramanian Swamy: On them, this magazine has produced it as a consequence of the American pressure on Swaziland to expose.

Karan Thapar: But the magazine could be wrong. The magazine could be forced.

Subramanian Swamy: Because they have not only forced the Rajiv Gandhi family.

Karan Thapar: But you are going on a very slender evidence. Stolen KGB documents not authenticated, magazines that are not conformed and collaborated.

Subramanian Swamy: You are not paying attention that is the problem with you. I have said that the spokesmen of the successor to the KGB went on record to say that yes we had given money to the family because they were friendly to us.

Karan Thapar: And the spokesperson to the successor of the KGB will stand by that today, have you got any conformation, collaboration?

Subramanian Swamy: Why should I? This is for the government to investigate. After all the High Court has issued a notice to the CBI to go and find out.

Karan Thapar: You also claim that she is also involved in export of antiquities. In fact you have been saying that if I recall correctly for decades. What proof do you have of this illegal export?

Subramanian Swamy: Well I have given evidence of that, I can tell you that she and Naveen Chawla's wife, they were actively involved in it.

Karan Thapar: You just named someone else.

Subramanian Swamy: Yes I did.

Karan Thapar: Are you sure that is not liable?

Subramanian Swamy: Please prosecute me, I will be happy. I enjoy going to the court to defend these things.

Karan Thapar: You may enjoy going to court but is it right and fair that on the slanders of evidence you are taking people to court, naming them.

Subramanian Swamy: You are sitting in judgment of it, you are not equipped to judge what is slander evidence and what is sufficient evidence.

Karan Thapar: But can you be the judge of your own evidence.

Subramanian Swamy: Whenever I have gone to court, I have managed to convince the court that I have prima facie case evidence, other wise I don't go to the court.

Karan Thapar: Can you be the best judge of your own evidence?

Subramanian Swamy: I'm no the judge, I have to have an evidence before I go to court and the court is the final authority.

Karan Thapar: When will you go to the court?

Subramanian Swamy: I will go to court as soon as I find time. I have got 2G on my hands you see. I am not the head of the CBI.

Karan Thapar: So this will happen only after the 2G is over.

Subramanian Swamy: I can't say when I will go to the court. I'm not going to give you the time table.

Congress is the mother of all the political evils existing in India. Congress was founded by one Britisher AO Hume in 1885 to distract Indian masses away from joining any political movement that may go against the colonial Government. Indians were provided with a platform to cough-up their political aspirations about freedom movement reflected through the Revolution of 1857.
The arrangement worked, since newly born Macaulay products of British Educational system found an amusement park to keep them busy with some home rule type lollypop under the supervision of British oriented Congress Presidents. As and when some nationalist leaders with guts like Lokmanya Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Veer Savarkar emerged and attracted masses with ideas of freedom as their birth right, they were eased out of Congress and replaced with moderates, of the types of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, MK Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Pattabhai Seetarammaiyya and so on. They could toe the British ideology . Out of those English educated personalities MK Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were more acceptable to British to participate with them on negotiating table. Finally they got the reward also as they were gifted with the political power of governance in left over of India.
We must not forget that Gandhi and Nehru had openly supported the British in second world war, which was fought to protect British colonial empire by contributing blood of Indian soldiers and they remained cold throughout towards Indian National Army of Subhash Chandra Bose. After gifting major chunk of India to Muslims as Pakistan, Gandhi and Nehru made them equal partners in the remaining part of India - and now they are preferential citizens of India having first right on country's resources as per Congress.
Congress party is now really showing its true colors. Under the garb of secularism it is turning out to be just another version of Muslim league, wedded to placating Muslims and Christians whom the British had favored on the eve of India's partition and thereafter. Congress is working to divide Hindus and fragment India into smaller states that will be asking for more and more autonomy in years to come.
Constitutionally Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are the off-shoots of Hindu religion and had been clubbed together by patriots like Dr Rajendra Prasad and Dr BR Ambedekar while drafting the constitution of India. But through reservations and other political gimmicks, Congress has been continuously creating wedge between Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs through appeasement of minorities. These Hindu sects are also referred as minorities purposely. By extending benefits of reservations to those who converted to Islam and Christianity, Congress leadership has been alluring and abetting conversions out of Hinduism to weaken Hindu unity in the country. Sikhs are also being offered minority benefits on the sly under Manmohan Singh's government and that is why a dubious debate goes on under the caption Sikhs are not Hindus. In all sincerity will the Sikh PM Manmohan Singh hand-picked by Congress President Sonia Gandhi to govern India muster courage to open his heart and mind on whether Sikhs are Hindus or otherwise? It is apparant that he would prefer to keep mum for political reasons and allow the controversy to linger on.
Sonia and her clan have to simply wait, hide and smile while the job is being done by spade workers. Rahul's remarks that there can be a Muslim Prime Minister in India is just to draw Muslim support as a link in the same chain. He stated that his religion was Tiranga - perhaps implying power - as there is no such religion. Sonia has stated that India is not a Hindu country.
It is now for the patriotic and nationalist Indians to see whether they would allow their home land to be ruined by such clandestine and sinister games. It is a religious obligation upon Hindus in particular to come out and unite against Congress rule and defeat it politically to save their home land, the memories, values and traditions of their ancestors, otherwise the same would be washed away from India in the tide of misplaced secularism. The whole game is nothing but minority appeasement, to strengthen minorities to destroy the left over traces of Hinduism in India.